Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhettzky
Few things wrong with that line of thinking. First is that if the City union members did negotiate on the City's bottom line and took their bare minimum raise each year, then it would most certainly have a negative impact on your yearly earnings. Why should front line workers accept a 2% raise when city council voted themselves a 4.7% raise?
Then they don't just strike if the vote passes. They continue to negotiate with the city with "__% of members voted to strike" on the table. After that they may do rotating strikes for a while in certain departments just like the postal workers.
|
I see what you are saying and where the sentiment comes from to want more of a raise, given the optics of council voting in a larger raise for themselves. All I'm saying is that the entire process is a giant farce meant to justify your union dues and allow management to save some money by any variety of creative negotiating ways. At the end of the day it's always the same story. Union goes in with outrageous demands, management goes in with outrageous demands, contract ends up somewhere in the middle. In the meantime, there is no way that the extra 1% that the union touts as a huge victory will ever replace the 1 or 2 paychecks you've had to forego.